Do you believe with utmost certainty that unbaptized babies go to Heaven?

[rogergosselin]

I am certain of one thing in these instances God will be the judge we have no way of knowing. I am certain he judges with mercy in mind.

God Bless

I hear this line of reasoning a lot, and I have to admit that it is very attractive. It is hard to imagine a merciful God allowing slaughtered innocents to be lost for eternity.

There are many truths that I don’t understand, but have to accept, because they are revealed. For instance, I struggle with how I could truly be happy in Heaven, if it were to be that my wife, or one of my five children, or one of my eight brothers and sisters descended into Hell. Yet, that is a possibility; many of my siblings have left the Church.

But, doesn’t the claim that “we have no way of knowing” deny the revealed truth about Original Sin, the need for Water Baptism, and membership in the one true Church for salvation?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am new to the forums, this being my second post, and find myself a bit embarrassed. Not just because I mispelled magisterial : ), but because there seem to be quite a number of formidible Catholic thinkers in this thread. I hope to benefit.

dmar198, the quote you provide from Pope Pius IX is challenging for me. I have to research that and some of the material from Trent that was just provided by Isaiah 45_9. If it takes me a few days to respond, I hope the thread will not have dried up, because I would like to continue.

My understanding, till this point, has been that “Baptism of Desire” does not have the power to save on its own, but may confer sufficient grace to finally lead a person to water Baptism. I know that some ( a minority?) of early church fathers considered the idea of salvation through Baptism of Desire, but that it only applied to Catachumens.

I was under the impression that Trent subsequently put the matter to rest by declaring the necessity of water Baptism. Now I see people claiming just the opposite from Trent; thus my need to research the matter.

I will also have to admit that this will be a hard sell for me, because in the dogmatic Athanasian Creed we profess ONE Baptism, not three; and scripture itself proclaims one Lord, one Faith, One Baptism. I would need help from forum members in resolving any apparent inconsistencies between de fide statements.

The references the Ott’s document that are identified as: “D 861” (As an example), refer to Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma.

I have found that reading Sources of Catholic Dogma along with Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma along with the Catechism – is the best way to understand a single subject presented by almost any one of them.

The thief on the cross was promised to be in heaven without water baptism (At least Scriptures and tradition are silent on this particular subject, we don’t know for certain whether or not the thief was baptized by John the Baptist – maybe he was caught by the authorities after he had repented). But the principle of the thief on the cross pretty much demonstrates the desire to know Jesus and the act of contrition by confessing his ways and accepting his guilt. In that way showing true acknowledgement of his sins accompanied by remorse and acceptance of punishment (penance).

Peace,

 

[Petaro]

You speak of faith as though you had yours and I had mine, which is flatly false. Any man who rejects even one article of the faith has neither living faith nor lifeless faith, but simply holds to his own opinion, which is in error, as St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates. See here.

I am not the one advocating a presumptuous analysis, you are. As you know, our Blessed Mother is the exception to the rule, she having received a “singular” grace; and the “unbounded love” to which you refer has indeed made a gracious and loving accommodation for those who die in the state of original sin only, which we call by the name of Limbo. Indeed, Almighty God is both merciful and just. If there is no Limbo, then the sacrament of Baptism is entirely unnecessary, which contradicts the teaching of our Blessed Lord. Matthew 28:19-20.

If you study the development of the doctrine of original sin, you will see that the doctrine of Limbo is in fact the milder, more loving view taught by the great theologians regarding the punishment due to original sin, against the doctrine set forth by St. Augustine.

Again, I would like to stress the point that this subject only gives us difficulty because it happens to involve infants, even those in the womb, who have not committed any actual sins. But if you admit an exception for infants in the womb, then you must admit an exception for children living outside the womb, and even therefore any child up to the elusive age of reason. However, the fact is that we are not at all talking about some speculative “theology of infant deaths,” but rather the infallible teaching on ORIGINAL SIN, which it seems you have not accepted with the virtue of faith or simply don’t understand.

Just out of curiosity, are you in favor of admitting to Holy Communion divorced and remarried Catholics who have not had their prior marriages declared null?

If you ever want to know the truth about Limbo (with ample magisterial authority cited) then listen to this sermon:

audiosancto.org/sermon/20131110-Limbo-of-the-Infants.html

You might also read the article on Limbo from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

If Limbo was a declared article of faith I would be the first to defend it as I do the Marian doctrines infallibly defined. However, it is not; it is just another theological thesis that is not outside the Magisterium. However, I am a simple man. I have seen great thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin; Schillebeeckx; even the great Rahner fall into error through possible intellectual pride. I look to a more simpler faith, always within the tenets of the Church.
I see nothing in the teaching of original sin which dissuades me from the confidence in a loving Saviour who forgives the sins of personal sinners without being asked, as exampled many times in the scriptures. How much further, then I ask, will He go to bring the little ones to His Father? It is not the issue of the children’s age but rather of their personal innocence. Surely His justice cries out for their salvation as a result of Christ’s Sacrifice for all men? The Church teaches of three forms of valid baptism; water, blood and desire. I suggest humbly that any created being, put before the Creator will desire, no, cry out for God as part of its natural destiny. Original sin does not destroy our creation in His likeness, nor the natural destiny of Adam. Our purpose is to know, love and serve Him in this life, and to be with Him in the next. Christ came so that all men may be saved. I have faith in that promise.
As an aside, I leave the decisions of the law to Caesar. The Church is the Caesar of its own laws and as a Catholic will wait for the decision of the Magisterium. Personally, I cannot see how the reception of the Eucharist to avowed sinners would be anything but a blasphemy to our Christ and sincerely doubt this is in the mind of the Bishops discussing the Family right now. I see the Eucharist as the greatest gift for our salvation given to mortal man. It should be approached on bended knee by those free of mortal sin in awe and humility. It is a sacrament of the Highest honour and should not be tarnished.
This Holy of Holies is not to be distributed without discernment. But it is for the Church to decide. I have great sympathy for the innocent partner in a civil divorce who remains unmarried and chaste. I believe they should be allowed communion despite being “divorced”.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t understand why the Christians (and Jews, to a lesser degree) in this thread aren’t showing a greater deferment to Scripture on the topic.

Scripture does not answer this question.

 

[cena]

I agree with your appreciation for CommonWeal’s dedication to the true faith, but I wonder what you think about the following line of questioning: hasn’t the Church officially interpreted the necessity of baptism to allow for either baptism in water or simple desire for baptism, at least in some circumstances? (Earlier I cited a passage where I think the Council of Trent dogmatically defines that desire for baptism, without water baptism, suffices for receiving saving grace.) If so, couldn’t some application of baptism by desire save infants who haven’t received water baptism?

I think that line of questioning, unless I’m missing something, leads to the possibility that infants who die without water baptism could, at least theoretically, be saved through baptism by desire. My first thought is that baptism could be desired for them, as faith is desired for them in the case of water baptism, but another thought is this: it seems God could enlighten unbaptized infants just before death so that they could desire the Sacraments. Does that seem possible? I think I have heard something similar to that, but there is also this magisterial teaching: “Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (Blessed Pope Pius IX, 1863, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7)

It seems that this Magisterial teaching excludes infants from suffering eternal punishments, unless I’m missing something. What do you think?

Theologians have a theory of limbo, unbaptized babies experience eternal natural happiness (like what we experience on earth) with no sickness or pain. They wouldn’t get to experience the beatific vision.

I don’t think it’s orthodox to think that is infallibly certain that they go to heaven, but since the Church hasn’t defined I’m just not going to have any opinion on it. We’ll find out one day.

Look into baptism of desire, the third kind of baptism. If the parents want to baptize their baby but their is a miscarriage baptism of desire might work but I haven’t really looked into that kind of baptism so

 

[cena]

Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism[9] and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,[10] let him be anathema.

 

[dmar198]

Theologians have a theory of limbo, unbaptized babies experience eternal natural happiness (like what we experience on earth) with no sickness or pain. They wouldn’t get to experience the beatific vision.

I am familiar with that theory, and the more people attack it as being unjust the more defensible I think it is.

I don’t think it’s orthodox to think that is infallibly certain that they go to heaven

I agree. I don’t think we can have certainty, but I do think we should give religious assent of the mind to the position that they do not go to hell. Pius IX, by my reading, leaves limbo and heaven as options, but excludes eternal suffering as an option for innocent babies.

Look into baptism of desire, the third kind of baptism. If the parents want to baptize their baby but their is a miscarriage baptism of desire might work but I haven’t really looked into that kind of baptism so

I think this issue has to be settled on the basis of baptism by desire as well. The Council of Trent seems to dogmatically define that only the reception of the Sacraments or desire for them can save a person, unless I’m missing something. If I got that right, and if unbaptized babies really haven’t received the Sacrament of baptism, and unless my logic is way off, then it seems to follow from that dogma that the only hope unbaptized infants have of entering heaven would be through desire for baptism.

I do have a potential difficulty with something you said, though: you said that if the parents want to baptize their baby but there is a miscarriage, baptism of desire might work. What about for the poor infant whose parents are non-Christian? Or who don’t believe in baptizing babies, or don’t even believe in heaven? Are those babies doomed because their parents don’t desire baptism or even salvation for their children? Perhaps other people can desire baptism on behalf of children, or maybe God enlightens the children just before death so that they can desire the Sacraments themselves. Without revelation, I don’t think we can know.

But we can hope. And if the hope of heaven for unbaptized infants turns out to be wrong, then at least Pope Pius IX said God won’t let anyone suffer eternal torments without having committed deliberate sin. To me, that means they won’t go to hell even if they don’t go to heaven. And that’s merciful.

 

[cena]

I am familiar with that theory, and the more people attack it as being unjust the more defensible I think it is. I agree. I don’t think we can have certainty, but I do think we should give religious assent of the mind to the position that they do not go to hell. Pius IX, by my reading, leaves limbo and heaven as options, but excludes eternal suffering as an option for innocent babies. I think this issue has to be settled on the basis of baptism by desire as well. The Council of Trent seems to dogmatically define that only the reception of the Sacraments or desire for them can save a person, unless I’m missing something. If I got that right, and if unbaptized babies really haven’t received the Sacrament of baptism, and unless my logic is way off, then it seems to follow from that dogma that the only hope unbaptized infants have of entering heaven would be through desire for baptism.

I do have a potential difficulty with something you said, though: you said that if the parents want to baptize their baby but there is a miscarriage, baptism of desire might work. What about for the poor infant whose parents are non-Christian? Or who don’t believe in baptizing babies, or don’t even believe in heaven? Are those babies doomed because their parents don’t desire baptism or even salvation for their children? Perhaps other people can desire baptism on behalf of children, or maybe God enlightens the children just before death so that they can desire the Sacraments themselves. Without revelation, I don’t think we can know.

But we can hope. And if the hope of heaven for unbaptized infants turns out to be wrong, then at least Pope Pius IX said God won’t let anyone suffer eternal torments without having committed deliberate sin. To me, that means they won’t go to hell even if they don’t go to heaven. And that’s merciful.

baptism of desire usually applies to those who don’t know the Catholic Church is the true religion through invincible ignorance
Even if they did go to hell, every person’s punishment is unique and dependent on what sins they committed. I doubt they would experience anything worse than someone’s temporal punishment on earth (which is for many many sins whereas they didn’t commit any). I think that theory of theologians is pretty good because we can’t forget the necessity of baptism but God isn’t heartless either.

 

[benjohnson]

Scripture does not answer this question.

It respectfully disagree - in that Scripture gives us an answer, but it’s not a easy one.

The answer requires us to have faith in Him who is perfect justice.

 

[AltarKnight]

Since it is not part of that which has been divinely revealed, I would not claim 100% certainty in this regard. We hold out hope. It may even seem pretty likely. But to be absolutely certain? I don’t see how that is possible.

 

[pnewton]

It respectfully disagree - in that Scripture gives us an answer, but it’s not a easy one.

The answer requires us to have faith in Him who is perfect justice.

Then what Scripture states the answer? It should be simple to give the reference. If not, then itis not Scripturethat answers, but rather human* interpretation* of Scripture, which varies from person to person, denomination to denomination and from time to time. Whose interpretation is** the** right on?

You say the answer requires faith. If Scripture answered this question, then all one would need would be understanding of the grammar, not faith. Faith, according to Scripture, is the evidence of things* unseen*, not the understanding of something clearly stated.

I personally am fine with not knowing the answer. For in not knowing, we are driven to faith, not in formulas and doctrines, but faith in the very nature of God, who by his nature will be more than we can every fathom. “Not knowing” is Man’s most common state when confronted with an infinite God.

 

[triumphguy]

Here’s a good treatment of the problem from the Vatican:

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

Why did they teach it with authority? As if it was blatantly obvious and you’d be a fool to disagree, if in fact it wasn’t a belief of the Church?

Seems to that a lot of e.g. Baptist preacher have said things as if they were “blatantly obvious and you’d be a fool to disagree” .

But I agree with you that it’s a question of authority: Did they teach authoritatively or not? Or to be more precise, what kind of authority did they teach it with? Was it the authority of a zealous Baptist? Or was it the authority of, say, the Council of Jerusalem?

 

[Fuerza]

I have to thank CommonWeal for professing the true faith in this matter.

While I don’t have his erudition, it just seems logical to me that to believe any unbaptized person can enter into Heaven is a complete rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin. Taken to it’s ultimate conclusion, it also is a denial of the horror of abortion. It would lead to the absurd conclusion that an abortionist is performing God’s will, because he is sending souls to Heaven.

I don’t have the quote with me at the moment, but isn’t it a magesterial teaching that all who die in mortal sin, or original sin only, do not enter into Heaven, but descend directly to Hell, but to suffer punishments of a different kind? Those that do not have actual sin do not suffer the “flames” of Hell, but suffer eternal separation from the beatific vision. (Maybe someone can help me with the exact pronouncement.)

I do sympathize with those who find this a difficult teaching. I do, also. It is difficult for me to reconcile God’s love and mercy with God’s justice. For that matter, how is it just, in human terms, that we all suffer punishment for the sins of others, Adam and Eve? But God’s ways are not Man’s, and we must accept his revealed truths.

I don’t know if anyone has answered you, but the statement to which you, and I believe also CommonWeal, refer can be found in the Second Council of Lyons as well as the Council of Florence which both state, “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

Many interpret this to describe Limbo. The argument is since that the only people who could die in original sin only, without additional mortal sin, are unbaptized infants and mentally disabled individuals, then clearly Limbo exists. It is important to clarify here that Limbo is technically a part of hell and the souls therein are in fact damned, but that common theory indicates their only punishment is the knowledge that they will never attain Heaven. Through the mercy of God, this knowledge does not prevent them from experiencing a certain degree of peace, and they are spared from all physical pain.

The other argument which I have recently seen is that this statement does not refer to unbaptized infants. The argument states that the act of dying in original sin only is in fact a mortal sin in and of itself, as it requires a certain laziness and apathy with regard to spiritual matters. Therefore, only an unbaptized mentally capable adult who, while never committing a material mortal sin and who was not otherwise excused by invincible ignorance, failed to seek God in life, would fall into this category. This type of person, as rare as he may be, would experience a punishment different from others in hell as his sin was less severe, though still in and of itself mortal.

I’m not completely sure which argument I believe. I’ve always imagined a sort of intermediate situation between these two extremes (despite not having realized that the second argument existed until recently). In my imagination, which is probably wrong and would be changed easily if presented with a Church teaching to the contrary, the souls of unbaptized infants are still subjected to a judgement by God. He looks into what their lives would have become had they lived and those who would have ultimately died in a state of grace are saved. Those who would have rejected God and died in mortal sin are sent to Limbo, where they are excluded from Heaven but are spared any suffering.

The real answer is that nobody here can be sure of anything. Therefore we need to baptize the children we can and pray earnestly for those we can’t.

 

[Fuerza]

Just a quick warning: the argument which I referenced in my previous post about adults who die in original sin seems to originate in, or is at least championed by, the writings of Ronald Conte whose status as an authoritative theologian is highly questionable. That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily wrong, but take it with a grain of salt and defer to the Magisterium.

 

[rogergosselin]

The thief on the cross was promised to be in heaven without water baptism Peace,

First, thank you for your guidance. I have heard of Denzinger, but haven’t sought out his works before. I will make an attempt to do so, soon.

I agree that the Good Thief was forgiven because of his remorse and desire for Jesus, but I do not believe the Good Thief gives any insight about the efficacy of Baptism of Desire. Jesus did not bind man to the law of Baptism until after his Ressurection. The Good Thief died under the Old Law, two days prior to the Ressurection.

 

[benjohnson]

Then what Scripture states the answer? It should be simple to give the reference. If not, then itis not Scripturethat answers, but rather human* interpretation* of Scripture, which varies from person to person, denomination to denomination and from time to time. Whose interpretation is** the** right on?

Even if you discount those passages or don’t trust interpretations of them, I don’t think any reasonably reader given the God’s gift of reason could read the entirety of God’s Word and come away with any concern for what God will do for the un-baptised children.

Scripture doesn’t give a clear answer to mechanism of God’s love for these children, but in it’s broad sweep it reveals to us a God who died for sinners us on the cross. We’d can therefore boldy proclaim that He will take care of those who die too early though no fault of their own - even if we don’t know how.

 

[benjohnson]

You say the answer requires faith. If Scripture answered this question, then all one would need would be understanding of the grammar, not faith. Faith, according to Scripture, is the evidence of things* unseen*, not the understanding of something clearly stated.

I should have been more clear - the acceptance of the answer requires faith.

If I may amend my answer - I maintain that proper reading of scripture requires faith given to us by God, but it’s also true that can come to faith by hearing the Word proclaimed.

So we may not necessarily be in disagreement.

I would also add that Faith also encompasses not just things unseen, but also in being able to rely on the promises that God has given clearly given us despite our own misgivings.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

First, thank you for your guidance. I have heard of Denzinger, but haven’t sought out his works before. I will make an attempt to do so, soon.

I agree that the Good Thief was forgiven because of his remorse and desire for Jesus, but I do not believe the Good Thief gives any insight about the efficacy of Baptism of Desire. Jesus did not bind man to the law of Baptism until after his Ressurection. The Good Thief died under the Old Law, two days prior to the Ressurection.

Well, heaven was not available until Jesus.

CCC 1026

By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has “opened” heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

Before in CCC 633 we see:

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

In light of this, when we take into consideration Christ’s statement of ““unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

It is then understood that all who enter the Kingdom of God have been born of water and spirit.

I don’t know of any exceptions to this statement that includes an absolute: “unless”.

In the absence of baptismal water, there must be then another form of baptism if one is to enter the Kingdom of God.

Christ said to the thief: “today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” There must be present a form of being born of water. Since the thief did not die as a martyr, the only other option I see is “desire”.

Peace,

ETA: You can find Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma free online.

 

[PRmerger]

Christ said to the thief: “today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” There must be present a form of being born of water. Since the thief did not die as a martyr, the only other option I see is “desire”.

Well, don’t forget about the other obvious option: he *was *baptized.

Not everything that happened to the Good Thief is recorded in Scripture.